Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (820158)	12/1/2014 10:20:46 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586342

It is your logic that is twisted. Literally. The following line: By your "logic" a 10 year old doesn't have the right to drink alcohol but he can legally demand to do so is the converse of what I said. The existence of a "right" means that a person is entitled to exercise that right at HIS option. If a 10 year old has the RIGHT to drink alcohol he may exercise that right and drink alcohol. If an accused has the RIGHT to testify before a grand jury he may choose to do so. At his option. In neither case does that right exist. That is the end of the story. The nonexistence of the "RIGHT" is NOT the same as a "prohibition". In the case of a 10 year old drinking alcohol, there is a specific prohibition under the law. In the case of an accused testifying before a grand jury there is no such prohibition. This really isn't that complicated.